Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes?

Abstract

Multiple-choice (MC) examinations are becoming increasingly popular in higher education because they can be used effectively to assess breadth of knowledge in large cohorts of students. This present research investigated Psychology students' performance on, and experiences of, MC examinations with and without correction for guessing. In Study 1, data were collected from two cohorts of students across three Psychology MC examinations. The results revealed that students scored higher, and left fewer questions unanswered, when there was no correction for guessing. Furthermore, when the correction for guessing was removed from the theory MC examination, students who were told there was no correction for guessing did better than those told there was a correction. In addition, there was limited evidence of gender differences, with female students performing significantly better on one MC examination than males. In Study 2, a further set of first-year Psychology students reported their experiences of correction for guessing on open-book and closed-book MC examinations. Students reported feeling less anxious and more confident on the openbook MC examination. The findings of both of these studies have implications for instructors deciding whether or not correction for guessing is appropriate, and for the advice to be given to students preparing for MC examinations.

The effect of test instruction and risk taking tendency on psychometric properties of multiple choice tests<p>Test yönergesi ve risk alma eğiliminin çoktan seçmeli testlerin psikometrik özelliklerine etkisi

“…Corrected score mean of the test applied with was smaller than mean of the test applied with . This finding is consistent with the many studies (Alnabhan, 2002;Betts, Elder, Hartley and Trueman, 2009;Swineford and Miller, 1953;Umay, 1998). Means of the tests applied with and significantly decreased after correction whereas mean of the test applied with increased.…”

The Application of Simple, Practical and Affordable Standard Setting Methods in Small Groups of Students

“…No correction for guessing is applied in the examinations themselves. When standard setting is done, correction for guessing takes place after the examination and students are not aware of it, so the important psychological considerations outlined by Betts et al(2009) do not apply. The method used might gain easier acceptability with faculty if correction for guessing is done and there seems to be no valid reason for not doing it.…”

Development of a modified Cohen method of standard setting

“…First, the correction for guessing can be removed, since this correction means that students' marks are partly determined by their attitude to risk (Betts et al 2009). Second, the subjectivity of the 0.6 multiplier was addressed using data from exams that have been standard set using a criterion-referenced method to find a 'local' multiplier.…”

“…The benefits of correcting for guessing in terms of reliability may be outweighed by concerns regarding fairness, since answering strategies and risk-taking behaviour are being assessed as well as subject-specific knowledge (Betts et al 2009). Since it has been noted that 'correction for guessing formulas do not show significant benefits over conventional scoring' (Chevalier 1998, p. 1) it may be more appropriate not to correct for guessing, but to maintain standards by increasing the multiplier.…”